Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OO Class 59 E.P.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OO Class 59 E.P.

    1st view of the E.P. this is a prototype assembly of the /1 version of this model. The photos show the general view of the model, including the rotating axle stubs and 'posable' cab doors. Inside there is room for a Bass Reflex speaker, sound decoder and our new 'drop-in' smoke generator.
    As you may expect with a sneak-peek this early in production, there are a number of tweaks required (for example no 'turn-ups' on the over buffer steps, and one view doesn't have the distinctive front 'air dam' fitted (this is a clip fit to either end, but will not permit use of the NEM coupling). I'm sure collectively you will spot the rest and I'm looking froward to your comments.

    I am working my way through the remainder of the supplied 1st shots for the remaining variations and will update again in a few weeks time.
    Regards
    Andy

    Dapol Staff Member

  • #2
    Hmmm, looks quite nice, although a couple of things leap out:
    1. It seems to suffer from the same issue as Bachmann's 66 in that the loco appears to slump forward and sit far too low on its bogies.

    2. I was rather hoping that Dapol would figure out a way of re-arranging the front end so that the cowling did not have to be removed completely in order to fit tension lock/Kadee style couplings. Instead they've simply opted for the same arrangement as Bachmann's 66. To my eye a 59 or 66 without that front cowling just doesn't look like a 59/66. Hugely disappointing.

    3. Some of the underframe piping and add-ons appear a bit 'chunky', particularly around the fuel tank area and on the bogies.

    4. Moulded bodyside grilles - would have been nice to be able to achieve that 'see through' effect, similar to Hornby's Class 60.

    5. Lack of handrails on the solebar just below cab doors.
    Regards
    Last edited by YesTor; 30 July 2016, 02:29.

    Comment


    • JeremiahBunyan
      JeremiahBunyan commented
      Editing a comment
      Hi YesTor,

      Found this picture and many more online. Seems to sit accurately in terms ride height on it's bogies. (Unless I've misunderstood your post)
      http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2059%20Drax.jpg
      http://www.traintesting.com/images/5...2019-10-06.jpg
      http://images.on-this.website/21199_...6e16d366b1.jpg

      And in terms of handrails on the solebar, maybe Andy can confirm if they're there or not i.e. it may of may not have been fitted.

    • Joel Dapol
      Joel Dapol commented
      Editing a comment
      We much appreciate your appraisal and will look at the points outlined in detail. This is in fact an advanced first shot, so plenty of opportunity to fine tune and as such will not have all the final detail included. However, the purpose of this forum is to gain and seek opinions on the models we intend to produce and as such any time taken to offer a critique is very much welcomed. Let's aim to make this the best model we can make.

    • Andy Dapol
      Andy Dapol commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks for taking time to make your comments, all good stuff. As mentioned this is the time to resolve the issues.
      Re: 'slumping' this maybe in part due my light box floor having a hump in the middle! I will run a rule over the bogies and give this a thorough checking.
      The front cowling is removable and does have a slotted alternative version which allows the body mounted articulated close coupling NEM to swing through its travel, I hope that's eased your concerns a little.
      Pipes, yes, I agree.
      Body-side grills: The prototype has very small holes as this is not a grill as such, but part of the cooler. The 60 has a 'traditional' grill with large mesh, so lends itself to an etched part much better. We could produce a fine etch and press to profile, but the holes would clog when painted and there would be a fit-line where the etch joins the body, this would be quite delicate due to the profile. Overall we feel that a more realistic finish can be achieved by moulding. Further checks will confirm this and we will strive to replicate this feature as accurately as possible.
      Solebar handrails are specified, but not fitted to this sample.

  • #3
    Hello Andy,

    It seems my gut feelings were right. And I'm so please to see these EP samples. Now all I have to see is the livery samples and I can decide which one to buy (i.e I'm more of a collector than modeler). The model looks superb!!! I do think there can be two improvements made and I've listed them below:-
    • I also think the model will benefit from etched grilles, but not too fussy.
    • I think there should be another cow catcher/snow plough with a slot for running with a coupling. But again not fussy and I'd be happy doing some modelling.
    All in all, it's an excellent model and I'd surely be getting one for the collection.

    I'll probably buy a Class 59 most similar to a Class 66 in my eyes and change the bogies (as I don't think the Bachmann Class 66 is upto par). And I must also point out, I think the wipers have been executed exceptionally well.
    Last edited by JeremiahBunyan; 30 July 2016, 05:16.
    Jeremiah Bunyan...

    Comment


    • #4
      A few observations. I know this is the 1st sample and changes can be done.

      The 59/0 cab - I take it this is for 59003 in its current GBRF guise with its bigger LED marker lights. Looks good

      Bogies - They dont look 'heavy' enough, EMD bogies are massively over-engineered - dare I say it, look at the Lima 59 bogies to compare

      Underframe - the underframe on these is an 'exoskeleton' ie a lot of the cables etc are visible - id have thought that all the cables would be moulded separately but only some of them are. Be worth the effort to have separate detail for the whole length.

      Needs etched grilles too, they look great on the Dapol 73 so keep it going!

      Re front skirts with cut-outs for the couplings, look at the Murphy Models 201 class, needs the same approach

      Comment


      • Andy Dapol
        Andy Dapol commented
        Editing a comment
        All worthy comments; (see above for comment on grills and skirts).
        Re Bogies, something I shall look into. It will be a matter of proportions, so all will be checked during our assessment of the EP.
        Cables etc. are an interesting point, I will look into this area and see what can be improved.

    • #5
      Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
      Bogies - They dont look 'heavy' enough, EMD bogies are massively over-engineered - dare I say it, look at the Lima 59 bogies to compare.
      Agreed. While the Lima bogies lack fine detail they do in fact capture the sheer bulk/weight rather well.

      Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
      Underframe - the underframe on these is an 'exoskeleton' ie a lot of the cables etc are visible - id have thought that all the cables would be moulded separately but only some of them are. Be worth the effort to have separate detail for the whole length.
      Agreed totally. Another major downfall of the Bachmann 66, and another reason why I've now stopped buying any more. The external cabling/wiring is a major feature of the prototype, and while I can see the potential complexity in modelling this feature, as LaGrang states it really would make this a first class effort if it could be achieved.

      Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
      Re front skirts with cut-outs for the couplings, look at the Murphy Models 201 class, needs the same approach
      Agreed. Additionally, look at the Hornby Class 60 - okay different prototype but same effect achieved by producing two separate cowlings - one that enables plugging couplings into the NEM socket and one that doesn't (for the perfect display model).

      Originally posted by LaGrange View Post
      Needs etched grilles too, they look great on the Dapol 73 so keep it going!
      Agreed. Again look at Hornby's Class 60 and its undeniable just how much this adds to the overall look; and again a distinctive feature of the 59 (and the 66 - which Bachmann also fail to reproduce), so if anything like that can be achieved it would really make a difference.

      Last edited by YesTor; 30 July 2016, 14:33.

      Comment


      • #6
        Originally posted by JeremiahBunyan

        Hi YesTor,

        Found this picture and many more online. Seems to sit accurately in terms ride height on it's bogies. (Unless I've misunderstood your post)
        http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2059%20Drax.jpg
        http://www.traintesting.com/images/5...2019-10-06.jpg
        http://images.on-this.website/21199_...6e16d366b1.jpg

        Looking at this photograph https://digest.dapol.co.uk/filedata/fetch?photoid=2048 and it clearly appears as though the left side is definitely not level. Okay, I understand that the model is viewed at an angle and also the front bogie is turned inward slightly, but nevertheless, the axle closest to the bufferbeam (on both ends in fact) appears to sit closer to the underframe than any of the other axles, which to my eye suggests that this suffers from exactly the same issue as almost every Bachmann 66 I have purchased, whereby the model appears to be slumped forward on its bogies and generally makes the model sit too low overall.

        I would also reiterate the comments of LaGrange in that the bogies generally do not appear heavy/robust enough in appearance. So it might even be possible that the (supposed) height issue is a result of seemingly weak-looking bogies? As LaGrange also mentioned above, looking at the Lima 59 bogies... http://s1077.photobucket.com/user/st..._0674.jpg.html and while they lack fine detail, I would say where they do win is in their heavyweight/robust/chunkier appearance.

        Add to this the missing front cowling/snowplough and again, from the above EP photo alone, this really adds to the effect of a weak-looking front end and slumping appearance. In layman's terms, it just ain't right.
        Last edited by YesTor; 30 July 2016, 14:38.

        Comment


        • Andy Dapol
          Andy Dapol commented
          Editing a comment
          Thanks for the additional information. At this stage nothing is final, it's common for minor issues with the moulds (tooling) to cause such issues and is the purpose of the 1st shot/EP (These really are first shots, rather than engineering prototypes, which come next) is to check for the overall fit and operation of parts. It's great to receive such detailed feedback.

      • #7
        On a positive note - rotating axle-boxes = excellent

        Comment


        • #8
          Thank you for sharing, I have been looking forward to seeing them and I very much like what I see. Of course compliments are often brief, constructive feedback often long.

          Is it a 1st EP or 1st Shot? I do not know does this matter in terms of the steel being stiffened and the tooling set?

          Captures a 59/1 very well generally. It looks like a 59/1, it feels like a 59/1 and if I stare enough I can imagine her in the very suiting Hanson livery.

          Now forgive me if I have missed details, or have seen something not there. Higher res photos shall like answer a few things.

          Two things which strike me the most, and said already is the chassis does not hide enough into the body and the bogies are not ‘balky’ enough. I know we discussed the latter before over the CAD images and no doubt it can be ratified. Along with the extra added details which shall be forthcoming with later samples.

          Looks as you have an ideal modellers job Andy, a bag full of bits on the last photo to glue into a wonderful 59/0 and 59/2. Really does bring back to the front of the mind just how much time goes into building a model from hundreds of parts (and likely explains the labour costs!).

          If I may, I have made a few comparison photos to aid us (I am PM additional/higher res if useful). Wonderful that the Digest allows us the customers to contribute to the development and refinement of the models we buy.

          (I might of got carried away ..... I hope it helps!)

          59.jpg:

          1. I agree with other points, the bodies do seem to sit up into the model. Of course, this is 1st EP (or even 1st Shot which is hand built) and I am sure they shall be level.
          2. I have to agree, I hope for the production models these grills shall be etched. I know it adds an additional cost making etches. But rather pay for it, than not have. Shall we all discuss? Price vs detail?
          3. Body to chassis supports, is this what the three black ones are…otherwise missing on left from right side of model. Piping appears to run over the supports on the loco.
          4. Now this is a sad one I know, life is more important than counting the details. I am embarrassed I counted this…but….the model has 19 nibs verses 18 of the prototype. From the fairly low res photo, it appears the upper rib is the extra one - with the ribs terminating before the door height on the prototype? Now I know what I have to do, go count the class 66!
          5. (Highlighted area) The chassis appears to not have enough depth to it when compared to the prototype, could this just be lighting or lack of black paint?
          6. Down chassis support missing on prototype.
          7. Window has screw holes on prototype and a frame and gap between fixed and opening windows. Perhaps etched frames for the forward window might suit?
          8. Piping appears rather predominately on the prototype here.
          9. Bogies do not have enough depth. This has been pointed out here and before on the CADs. (https://digest.dapol.co.uk/forum/mai...?p=458#post458) It does not appear to be their size but their bulk/width outwards. They appear to dominate more on the prototype and have greater width out of the body/chassis?
          10. Piping should terminate further along to position on arrow?
          11. Piping appears rather predominately on the prototype here.

          Perhaps the solution is bigger bogie frames, bigger wheels, equaling higher ride profile by around a millimetre.

          59 Front.jpg:

          1. WiPac lighting pods have curved corners. (Perhaps it is the low res photo of the 1st EP?)
          2. Windows seem a bit on the small size. There is a smaller gap between windows and loco sides than on the 1st EP. Windows maybe 0.5 mm extra on X & Y axis?
          3. I would imagine an etch grill is covering the horns?
          4. The frames seem undersized and I do not see the screw holes. Perhaps an etched window frame might work better? I know etch adds price, but would look superb.
          5. Coupling depression appears to be too rectangular.
          6. Plates above buffers are too low. There is a clear difference between loco and 1st EP

          ? A thought to a solution for the discussion on the shield not being NEM coupling friendly. I note discussion on the MM 201 or HB 60 (or even BB 70) and I did some research on those solutions but I do not think they would be an ideal solution as the shielding has far more depth on these prototypes and thus it can be modeled? The shields on the 59/66 are straight long metal, thus model form I would imagine (if not detachable) are fairly fragile? Perhaps a solution would be to simply have a rectangle hole. TBH not a massive concern for me. But thought to offer a solution to which I hope we can all discuss.

          590.jpg (certainly looks like a 1st shot over a 1st EP):

          1. Comment made earlier, the lighting holds do seem a little oversized. Though I am sure once the wholes contain light bulbs it might remove this effect.
          2. As with the 59/1, the windows seem a bit on the small size, by less and a millimetre all around. Others agree?
          3. Good to see the window screw wholes. Frame, as with the 59/1 could be larger. Have you considered making it etched?

          Plates above buffers and central couple depression seem right over the 59/1.

          Anyway, all points are fairly minor, part from the bogies in my mind. We have a superb looking 59 here and I look forward to Hanson, AI and DBS liveries in due course. (and some wagons to haul! I have been informed the new Mendip Rail/VJG open boxes shall be the same design of JNAs as discussed over on the wagon section….)

          Utterly understand that the 1st Shot/EP do not follow the CAD to the T and this is why we are all here to discuss and identify.

          I look forward to further progress.
          Thanks for sharing.

          Comment


          • #9
            Originally posted by 159220 View Post

            59 Front.jpg:

            1. WiPac lighting pods have curved corners. (Perhaps it is the low res photo of the 1st EP?)


            I look forward to further progress.
            Thanks for sharing.
            Hi mate...It does have rounded corners!

            Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	265
Size:	19.1 KB
ID:	2081
            Jeremiah Bunyan...

            Comment


            • 159220
              159220 commented
              Editing a comment
              I did say the low res photo is difficult to identify some details clear. See your photo highlights an error I did not spot. The seam between body and chassis seems too pronounced/thin. (In fact the WiPac light pods could do with being more pronounced too.)

          • #10
            Hi Andy,

            Many thanks for sharing the EP shots, it's great to see concrete progress on this model. Rotating axle-boxes is a great feature and very distinctive on the prototype so well done for replicating this!

            I admit to a vested interest in the 59/1 (given that I'm building a layout based on part of Whatley quarry) so I'll confine my comments to the 59/1. Please see the comments below and annotated comparison shots. Apologies for repeating a couple of issues that have already been mentioned, but I wrote this whilst sat on a plane before reading the comments in the thread above.

            Front of the Loco:
            1. Horn grille missing
            2. Window screws possibly missing (hard to tell from the photo?)
            3. Seam is a bit too narrow
            4. Grab-rail has rounded corners, not right-angled
            5. It looks like these etched parts haven’t had their sides folded? Could this be just down to the way that the EP has been put together?
            6. Not sure what these pipes are doing here? There should be 4 vertical holes.
            7. What are the four holes on the skirt doing there?
            8. Missing skirt lugs/eyes
            9. Missing skirt steps

            Three-quarter's view:
            1. Grille needs to sit flush with the roof (EP assembly issue?)
            2. It’s hard to tell because the door has been ‘posed’ open, but it looks like the door is not flush with the side.
            3. The 3 black stanchions have a gap at the bottom, they should run all the way to the bottom of the frame.
            4. This panel seems a bit too indented
            5. The grilles show only 14 rather than 16 ribs
            6. The gap between this part and the upper body shouldn’t be there (EP assembly issue?)
            7. The steps don’t appear to be aligned with the door? Is the bogie positioned too far forwards?
            8. Extra damper shouldn’t be there for 59/1.
            9. Fuel pipe should be angled inwards not outwards (EP assembly issue?)
            10. The prominent pipes that wrap around the lower frame missing.
            11. Grab rails missing
            12. The whole centre section of the body is a removable cowling (there are photos on the web showing this removed). As such, it sits a bit proud of the rest of the body. This is not just a simple seam line as depicted.

            Personal key features:
            1. Must take kadee (ideally in a NEM pocket) in a hole through the skirt.
            2. Switchable rear lights

            If you could post some higher resolution photos we (collectively) might be able to comment further.

            Kind regards,

            Guy

            Comment


            • steadfast
              steadfast commented
              Editing a comment
              8) The extra damper was fitted around 1998 to 59101-3 and 59001-5. 59104 and the 59/2s were built with it. AS well as the damper itself, at the exhaust end there's a kick plate protecting you from standing on it.

            • Andy Dapol
              Andy Dapol commented
              Editing a comment
              Once more, wow a great list, thanks! We do appreciate the amount of time that goes into preparing feedback such as this and it's invaluable to us.
              Re: Dampers there were a number of iterations and we've catered for the main variations, i.e. single damper, dual dampers and with/without Yaw dampers.
              Many other points are valid and I shall act or comment accordingly.

              On the key features - Yes an NEM pocket is fitted, body mounted and on a close coupling mech, R2 curves are achievable.
              Lighting will be fully controllable (a-la class 68) with independent front & rear (switched for DC) cab lights etc.

          • #11
            Hi Andy,
            I was talking to you at the NGS AGM about the N scale 59, liveries and wagon choices.
            First appearances look good overall, concur with what most of the comments so far have said regarding the small details that would really tidy things up.

            A couple of questions not raised so far:
            - Is there scope for 001 and 201 to be released with the bell fitted at the exhaust end?
            - Since others have asked about some small variations, in the EWS era all locos gained a GPS aerial above the windscreen at the cooler group end, is this variant covered?
            - The 59/2s have the air pipes in a different position (except 201) and have remnants on the buffer beam from when the buckeyes were fitted in National Power days - I guess this is what the holes in the lower fairing are for? If so 001-104 don't need it.
            - Are you doing both styles of exhaust? The current style with the exhaust exiting to the single grill side is the most long lived if not.

            Regarding the comments on the cooler group side grills, the real thing is a mesh rather like an electric razor foil, arranged in a zigzag pattern which I guess if made as an etch would be rather fragile. There's a walkway behind this, and then the cooler group itself. You can only see through it when the shutters on this are open and only when you look through at a view perpendicular to the loco. From most angles you cannot see daylight through the grills, unlike a class 60 where everything is open behind it. There seems to be a trend these days for fitting an etch whether it gives a better quality finish or not, just to add "etched grills" to a feature list, but on the 59s the grills are surely better represented solid plastic?

            On the 59/0 tool, the circular holes in the bufferbeam aren't quite right. Please see my attached pics. At the exhaust end there's one hole on the second man's side and a pair under the driver's side.
            At the cooler group end this is reversed. 59005 just has the single hole at each end. Also, the marker and tail lights should both be the same diameter. The tail light (upper hole) looks about the right size.

            Hope this is useful and I look forward to seeing the N models progress

            Jo

            Attached Files

            Comment


            • JeremiahBunyan
              JeremiahBunyan commented
              Editing a comment
              Hi Andy,

              Personally I prefer the moulded grille, I totally forgot the set-up of the Class 59/66 grilles until it was mentioned here and I recall seeing an O gauge model done well. However you make a good point regarding paint clogging the holes. But I'm not sure so don't take my suggestion as gospel, but aren't there ways to chemically blacken metals?

              If that's a possiblity maybe you'll can consider it. Just a thought.

            • Andy Dapol
              Andy Dapol commented
              Editing a comment
              Chemical blackening is a possibility to be considered, but there is still the difficulties in fitting a 'waffle' into the body consistently and correctly. The profile will make this tricky as there is a natural springiness which will impart a curve to the etch. When viewed against the dark model interior, would the holes be viewable? I'm not discounting this entirely (it would be 'cool' if we could pull this off), but merely wondering if the end result would be so much different (without backlighting) to the plastic moulded version?
              Last edited by Andy Dapol; 2 August 2016, 17:53. Reason: Moulded, not mould!

            • JeremiahBunyan
              JeremiahBunyan commented
              Editing a comment
              I'll be okay with anything Andy, just a suggestion, I am not aware of the process but only heard of it. It will be superb if pulled off. But it must not affect the price much. I'm happy with moulded ones.

          • #12
            Andy,

            I've been looking at more photos on the plane on the way home.

            A) Ignore my point 8 about the lateral damper. They were fitted to the 59/1s shortly after delivery it seems (as pointed out by Jo).

            B) I'm not sure that the cooler group side grilles need to be an etch (as suggested by some) but it really ought to have the correct number of ribs! I agree with Jo: you can rarely see all the way through. From what I know about etching (having made a few myself), the etch would have to be so fine to represent the correct mesh pitch that it would be super-fragile. You'd have a hell of a time forming it into the right shape too.

            C) Regarding 159220's comment 6: "Down chassis support missing on prototype.". He is incorrect. You have got this right! I'll attach photographic proof.

            Finally, as a suggestion, perhaps you could split the photos into 59/0, 59/1 and 59/2? Since there are a host of detail differences on the sub-classes it would be good to understand which photo is supposed to represent which sub-class so that we don't make the wrong comments.

            Guy

            IMAGE 1: Cooler group grille (showing very fine mesh pitch):


            IMAGE 2: 59/1 showing triangular support is present at both ends of the chassis (point C above). Also of interest is the engine cowling lying on the ground. You can see just how prominent the seam is on the loco where this attaches.



            Link to shot showing cowling removed: https://www.flickr.com/photos/354760...7639746170234/
            Last edited by lyneux; 31 July 2016, 20:25.

            Comment


            • Andy Dapol
              Andy Dapol commented
              Editing a comment
              Thanks for the photos. I have parts for the variants, which I shall assemble in due course, aiming for this in about 10 days from today. (1st 3 weeks of this month are a bit busy)

          • #13
            I shall respond in more detail individually a little later, but wished to acknowledge and thank all who have made comments so far It is much appreciated, we have such a wealth of knowledge here.
            I will comment on each posting shortly.
            Regarding the variations, I have a 'kit' of parts and body mouldings for each major sub-type on my desk which I need to check and assemble, and there will be more information that will expand on the brief posting I made, in a couple of weeks time (rather busy travel and meeting schedule in the interim)
            Regards
            Andy

            Dapol Staff Member

            Comment


            • #14
              I hope the comments I've posted above clarify some of the points raised. The purpose of producing and publicising the model at this stage is for further development and refinement. It's far from a 'what you see is what you get stage' Overall these are extremely useful for the review of the model. Once reviewed, I shall post a set of notes and further photos for debate.
              In the meantime, we welcome further comments and observations, whilst I will try to acknowledge and/ore discuss however, I am travelling for the next 10 days and there maybe a delay before I can respond, your patience is appreciated.
              Regards
              Andy

              Dapol Staff Member

              Comment


              • JeremiahBunyan
                JeremiahBunyan commented
                Editing a comment
                Thanks for taking the time...You've been busy I can see as I got an email every 3 mins for the last half an hour notifying me about your posts. You deserve a rest Andy. However you are travelling and I hope you have pleasant trip.

                Again many thanks for the postings. Very helpful and very positive.

            • #15
              Over time I've managed to measure bits and pieces. There may be some small discrepancies due to being measured by one guy with a tape measure, but they are accurate enough to hopefully help people's assessments of things like windscreen proportions etc.

              Jo

              Comment


              • Andy Dapol
                Andy Dapol commented
                Editing a comment
                Thanks this is great stuff!
            Working...
            X